SutherlandÆs Differential Association Theory suggests that people commit crime by learning in a social context through their interactions with others and communication with them (Essential 137). He believed criminal behavior is learned by interaction with others, and this includes learning the techniques of committing the crime, and the motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes for committing it. This is due to their definition of legal codes as being favorable or unfavorable, and so if someone believes the legal codes are unfavorable, they will be more likely to commit a crime. The mechanisms for learning criminal behavior from others are the same as all the mechanisms involved in other types of learning. Sutherland did not believe that criminal behavior could be explained by a personÆs needs or values because these also shape the behavior of people who do not commit criminal acts.
The policy implications of this theory are simple. If socialization with certain groups causes criminal behavior, then young people must be kept away from these groups (144). For those already implicated in criminal behavior, resocialization is needed. Special interventions such as peer-led interventions, resistance skills training, and training in personal and social skills will be needed. Family-based and community programs may help if the parent-child interaction in their early years drove adolescents to associate with these groups in the first place. Presenting clear and simplified laws and publicly proclaiming the law and the reasons for it in the media may help deliver the message.
There have been modifications of the theory since Sutherland proposed it in 1957 and 1960 (141-142). Reis and Rhodes, 1964 proposed peer group association, but only in specific kinds of delinquent behavior. Jensen, 1972 found it independent of other variables. Akers et al, 1979, found it to be true in regard to marijuana use. Jaquith, 1981,...